[fvc-wat-disc] Multi-cultural festival thoughts - part 1 - the attendees

Wed Jun 28 17:11:49 EDT 2017

I'm w you on this.
David

    On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 4:46 PM, Jay Judkowitz <judkowitz at gmail.com> wrote:

 Great minds think alike  :-)
As for the order of preferences, I would defer to more experienced folks on the list and don't have a general opinion.  I only have one specific opinion which is that with the true believers, we ask for them to join us.  That's the most valuable result we can get since it increases our ability to reach others.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:30 PM, David dirks <daviddirks at rogers.com> wrote:

So Jay, that's exactly what I was thinking.  We make one consistent/common ask and then I agree, if they are interested/keen then we go down our list.
David

    On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 4:21 PM, Jay Judkowitz <judkowitz at gmail.com> wrote:

 Sharon, sure, I can try to writeup a draft.  I don't have any pretensions to ultimate wisdom here so it will only really be worthwhile if people want to collaborate and help refine my draft to make it reflect the group's wisdom here.  When would you like a draft by?  Would we want to collaborate online (shared Google doc) or talk about it at a group meeting.
David, I agree, it can be lot to ask.  But, I don't think we should give up on it all.  What would make sense to me is to prioritize what we want.  Get the first thing on the list and if the person is still relaxed and interested, go for #2 on the list and so on.  If they make it all the way, great.  If they don't, we thank them for what we did get.  What do you think?  Would that make sense?  If so, we should decide on the priority order of the requests.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David dirks <daviddirks at rogers.com> wrote:

I really appreciated Jay's take on the people.
A few thoughts for me after reading Sharon.
I think Jay has it in his analysis, and just  in case.  There are those v happy w the FPTP and the Liberal government.  I have either got the v quick brush off or a somewhat stern lecture on being naive.
I know personally when I am out at a Festival especially w the grandkids, I do not have the time/luxury to chat.  I take a quick look (depending upon Nollie's tolerance) and file the information away.
I wonder if we may be asking too much from people: two petitions, three postcards, sign up.  Is it worth focusing on one thing and then expanding the options depending upon the conversation and available time?
David

    On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 6:52 PM, Sharon Sommerville <sharonsommerville at gmail.com> wrote:

 Hi Jay,
I agree with Cathe that your perception of the types of folks we encounter at public events is excellent.  
There is always the opportunity to make our conversations with people more engaging, thoughtful and effective.  Thanks for opening up this line of conversation.
In terms of working with the various groups perhaps we could develop short scripted responses/strategies for each category that we can use when we identify someone that fits one of the categories.  
One of the things we need to be aware of is that we have caught folks in mid stream, that is to say; they weren't thinking about electoral reform at that moment they encountered us.  We just happen to be there and have caught their attention.  When we ask them if they are willing to take action, we have no less than 5 things they can do: one or two petitions, one, two or three postcards..... we also want them to sign up for the discussion or announcement list and that is in addition to signing numerous things but we want support for our current campaigns and to get them to sign on to becoming somewhat involved.  It is a delicate situation, when someone is just out looking to watch a Ukrainian dance group and have a funnel cake. 
Cheers,Sharon

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Catherine Campbell <cdcampbell9 at gmail.com> wrote:

It was nice to finally meet you on sat. I've been impressed by your analysis you've sent to the group. Regards, Cathe Campbell 

Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 26, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Jay Judkowitz <judkowitz at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi folks,
     It was great working the booth with you all.  The numbers Sharon shared about sign-ups for the petition were amazing.  Great work, everyone.
     I was thinking about the different groups, how they differed from each other, and how we can approach them for the best result.  I'd love your thoughts on these observations and suggestions.   
   - People who are already sold: These people are great.  Take no time, readily give their signatures, and usually provide us some form of moral support.  For them, our goal should be to get them to become active and to join one of our mail lists.  We need to make sure we give them the smallest possible commitment level possible and see if we can't get them hooked on working on this issue with us.

   - Curious people who just never thought about it before: These are actually the perfect audience.  They are curious and want to know why we are spending all day at a fair talking about our issue.  They generally are sympathetic to the question of fairness.  They like non-partisan messaging because they are not steeped in the history of broken promises and want a positive message.  To them, it's good to just say it's a risk to have 39% of the votes create an unassailable legislative machine because you never know which 39% will win.  The fact that the last two minority majorities were from different parties make it super easy to keep it non-partisan.  It's possible to do this discussion without even using the name of a party once.

   - People who get it, but not why it matters: They acknowledge the unfairness of FPTP but don't see why they should care.  This is a tough crowd because we don't know what argument to give if fairness does not work.  Do they care more about coalition building, less dictatorial power of a single party leader, better representation of women and minorities, or having more voices and interests heard?  I think that with these people (if they don't just walk off), we need to ask them questions - find out what they care most about and see if we can relate FPTP vs. PR to their interests. 

   - Angry people: These people don't need to be grabbed in - they come to us.  They have a gripe about the world and feel that the government is inherently unfair and out to screw us all.  They talk to us because they see us as also upset about unfairness and know we will listen.  Well, actually they talk AT us. They want to share their gripe and be heard but don't really discuss PR WITH us.  The problem is that they take our time and attention away from other people we want to talk to and, worse yet, they can scare away folks from the booth.  To top it all off, sometimes they don't even sign the petition because they are convinced nothing will ever make a difference.  For these people, we need to make a quick and compelling case that in spite of the inherent selfishness of people and parties, PR can make things better by creating checks and balances between the parties and create more accountability.  We can't be unrealistic in saying we will cause better people to be elected, but rather we can create a better system for reigning in the worst in our leaders.  That said, if they don't bite quickly, it's probably best to excuse yourself to talk to someone who seems like they won't rant for 10 minutes or so.

   - Apathetic people: These people usually run away quickly and refuse to make eye contact.  But, sometimes their kids want to spin a wheel and take candy.  Maybe it's just easiest to let them go, but maybe it's possible to just give a quick general non-PR message that politics matters in general.  Sure, life is very good for very many Canadians right now, but there is no law of nature that says it always has to be so.  Special interests and actual bad people don't rest and without the vigilance of good and reasonable people, we can lose the precious situation we have here.  We won't get them to sign for PR, but maybe we can plant a seed for later.
     Talk to you all soon.
Best regards,Jay

______________________________ _________________
This is the fvc-wat-disc mailing list
Post a message: fvc-wat-disc at listserv. thinkers.org
Unsubscribe: http://listserv.thinkers.org/ mailman/listinfo/fvc-wat-disc_ listserv.thinkers.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170628/33bfb18e/attachment-0002.htm>